User talk:Washuotaku/Archive 2016

Interstate 269

I have now driven on Interstate 269. Please stop reverting. TDot has now signed I-269 along SR 385. I will try finding a reference, but please stop reverting when I gave proof that I-269 is signed. From EBGamingWiki —Preceding undated comment added 13:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Your proof is your word, which I believe we need a bit more than just that. Please do find those references. --WashuOtaku (talk) 23:28, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

NC 18 revert

Re this edit: OK, fine, if you say so. But it would probably have helped to discourage it if you didn't have a history section empty save for one of those little "please expand this" tags. Either write some real history of the road, or get rid of that section until you can. Otherwise you're asking for more edits like that. Daniel Case (talk) 01:32, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

The history section of a highway article is about the highway, not about events that has happened on the highway. --WashuOtaku (talk) 02:37, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

We need not be so limited. See here; no one at USRD has ever suggested removing that (Of course, to give you your due, we also have a pretty solid history of the road in that article already as well, something we don't have here). Daniel Case (talk) 06:48, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Goals for NC Highways

So I have come back to restart helping out NC articles. For what I see looks like some good progress has been made especially with maps. Right now however I think we need to turn our attention to Stub and Start article. I recently put NC 98 up for GA Nomination which if that's passed will make the 4th GA in the state, which is excellent, however we still have a lot of articles that are missing Rd, History or both. If we could work on these to get them up to C or B class, it could be a big step towards upgrading our network. Anyway look at Michigan Highway articles for a basic template for what to do, all of those are GA so theyre no wrong article to base yours off of. Sorry if this came out bad, its 11 so I'm not thinking the best. I'll be happy to clear up questions in the morning. --Ncchild (talk) 04:06, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

okay --WashuOtaku (talk) 05:38, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry.

I needed to fix a Cyberbot bug related to that dead ref. The article state was only temporary.—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 16:16, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited North Carolina Highway 39, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pilot, North Carolina. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:53, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

North Carolina Highway 226

added a link pointing to Grassy Creek, North Carolina

North Carolina Highway 39

added a link pointing to Harris Crossroads, North Carolina

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:08, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Yadkin River Veterans Memorial Bridge

Thanks. Didn't know anything was wrong there. I thought this was a great illustration of the topic and I didn't see any sign of copyright problems, so I felt it was an okay link to use.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:53, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I just happened to look at the link and I started noticing things appear off. Clicking on links that suppose to work only circled back and then when I read the pages I noticed links to pay day loans and stuff; I got worried at that point that maybe it was created simply as a clone to trick people and possible do worse. Would have been great if it was the legit site, sorry to see it go. --WashuOtaku (talk) 21:20, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I-526 (Charleston, SC)

I'm not sure why the Future section of the entry needs to include plans which have been rendered moot by the decision to withdraw funding for the highway extension. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.180.123.170 (talk) 02:43, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm cool if you want to eliminate the future section, but what was there needs to move to history then. You can reword it and such, but in general we don't want to remove stuff from the article even if it becomes moot; we should explain where they were going and why it became moot instead. --WashuOtaku (talk) 03:10, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

U.S. Route 70 in North Carolina

I wanted to improve some other articles that I worked on where the sources I used turned out not to be what Wikipedia considers reliable, even though I thought they qualified as reliable when I saw them.

You seem to be the person who found all the sources used on the U.S. 70 article, and if Google had been capable of finding them, I would have thought they would come up for me. I even asked an N.C. DOT employee but I didn't say Wikipedia as I figured that might not be seen as a good use of their time. I never got a response because I was told I hadn't given them a good reason to spend time on my request. So how do you find them?

I started to do this at home, but with my slow internet I might be here a while. I started to do it at the library earlier, but I ended up having so much to do there I never got around to it.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:22, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Here are sources I have found and bookmarked for both North Carolina Highways:

• NCRoads.com Annex - This is not a valid source, but the research done on this page is by far the most comprehensive. It is a great starting point and then find valid sources that back it up (i.e. maps, news articles, press releases, etc.). Though it cannot be a reference, I still list the page in external links.
• NCDOT: Route Changes - Major valid source, NCDOT actually keeps a cache of route change documentation online. They are all PDF files and can go back into the 1960s, though there is some gaps. They tend to update periodically.
• NCDOT: State Mapping Resource - Glorious county and other maps maintained by NCDOT. They feature all current county maps here and have historical county maps at the bottom of page. (I have downloaded the historical maps as its easier to look through them that way and then link the source on wiki.)
• NCDOT: State Transportation Map - Current state map and some historic maps listed at bottom. (Again, download them for easier viewing and link the source.)
• There are more sources on NCDOT's website including project pages and news releases.
• North Carolina Celebrates the Interstate System's 50th Anniversery - This page no longer exists, but nothing is truly deleted from the internet. The Wayback Machine saved this nugget of NC interstate history and if you know what you are looking, the Wayback Machine can find articles and pages from long ago.
• Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Resources/AASHTO minutes - Source on Wikipedia, the AASHTO minutes. Going back to 1967 on US and Interstate route changes that needed AASHTO's approval.
• [http://www2.lib.unc.edu/dc/ncmaps/ North Carolina Maps (NC State Archives) - More maps, but more difficult to use. Here is where I can find all the former State Transportation Maps over the years and other fantastic maps; but the system is like pulling teeth. If you notice the references I used for US 70 article, I have link a lot of maps and I recommend looking there first before jumping into this system.
• Other source are local news sites: Charlotte Observer, Raleigh News & Observer, Asheville Citizen-Times, Greensboro News & Record, Wilmington Star News and Winston-Salem Journal. All sites have limited archives to use; for ones that have a paywall on the archive, use the Wayback Machine to hopefully get around it.

That is pretty much it. Other items I may find are by chance or by others that found it and I capitalize it. I tend to look what others used as sources and see if I can find other things from those sources. Don't be afraid to build on others work, that is how Wikipedia works. Hope this was all informative. --WashuOtaku (talk) 21:56, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I-87/I-42

Just a heads up, since I 87 and I-42 have been signed I will be working on seperate pages for them both. Feel free to add. The pages will be user:ncchild/Interstate 87 (North Carolina-Virginia) and user:ncchild/Interstate 42

Don't. They have "NOT" been signed nor exist on the ground yet, they are only future routes. If you try to build a page it will be removed because there isn't enough information yet for them. The stand-ins are fine for now. Thanks for the heads-up and you have been warned. --WashuOtaku (talk) 01:33, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

From what I have read from the NCDOT they are at least starting to put up Future signs along 87. They've been routed and it would be just like Interstate 11 or something like that.--Ncchild (talk) 14:54, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

But they are still only "Future" signs and not actual routing signs. NCDOT should be submitting requests in the fall AASHTO meeting to actually field I-87 signs, till please hold back on building an article on little information. The wikiteam has been quashing them. --WashuOtaku (talk) 13:11, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I get where you're coming from, but what about articles like I-11. Aren't they the same thing. And didnt AASHTO already designate the interstates? Also I won't post the articles until I can get substantial information for them.--Ncchild (talk) 20:25, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I-11 has more material to work with and it started back in 2007 looking at the article history. We just got introduced to I-42/I-87 a few weeks ago and don't have much beyond what we already got now. What we currently have works as its to show "here it is," because we really don't have more details than just that. --WashuOtaku (talk) 20:38, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Alright I'll keep the sandbox pages open and add facts as it goes. Once the projects get off the ground then we can see how everything goes and add them at a later date--Ncchild (talk) 01:35, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Also before I forget, I want to thank you for helping me with the articles that I create and edit. I couldn't have gotten those GA's up to status without you and you're constantly checking over my work and helping out the entire system so again thanks a lot!--Ncchild (talk) 01:39, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

NCDOT Project Maps

I saw that someone has used a project map from the NCDOT on the I-540 Article. Are we allowed to use those, I didn't know if they were copyrighted or not?--Ncchild (talk) 03:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I looked at Wikicommons and they flagged it for deletion by June 15th because of copyright. I upload pictures on wikicommons, even have a page there, so you were right that it might be suspect. The uploader needs to prove Creative Commons permission when it is not their work; the uploader didn't do that and thus will be removed soon. --WashuOtaku (talk) 04:32, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Beaucatcher

Both the ASCE and GNIS say that Beaucatcher Tunnel was completed in 1929. Bridgehunter, while helpful, is user-contributed just as Wikipedia is and should be verified by other means. I'm going to review newspaper sources, which should settle the matter and allow expansion of the Beaucatcher Tunnel article, but that must wait until tomorrow. Acroterion (talk) 05:33, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

If the dates are wrong, that's fine; however I would recommend incorporating the tunnel onto the Beaucatcher Mountain article instead, because standing on its own will be deleted at some point. --WashuOtaku (talk) 22:19, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I doubt that - it's a valid gazetteer entry and having done more than 64,000 deletions myself I would have trouble finding a deletion rationale. However, there's something to be said for merging content, since the mountain, the tunnel and the cut are intimately connected, and a single article might serve the reader better. There was a lot of press about the tunnel-vs-cut debate around 1975, but since newspapers.com has paywalled the Asheville Citizen-Times, which obviously has most of the coverage, it's hard to access the newspaper's coverage. I think you be on the right track with a merge from an informing-the-reader point of view. Acroterion (talk) 01:56, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure there are other methods to get articles from that time period, typically newspapers don't put that behind the Paywall because it is so far back. Here is one example of two articles sharing as one: Newfound Gap, which is about the gap and the road. Other examples exist and that since we don't have a whole lot of content to work with, it might be best to combine that information to one easy article, which appears you are leaning towards now. --WashuOtaku (talk) 02:39, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I 40 Alternative?

Last weekend I saw a sign at the I-40/NC 403/US 117 Interchange marking an I-40 Alternative. Do you know if that is an official routing?--Ncchild (talk) 20:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

That was probably for traffic. Like if I-40 is backed-up, this route is an alternative that will take you to the same direction and back onto I-40. It's all unofficial and is used in several places. I wouldn't worry about them. --WashuOtaku (talk) 22:17, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Alright. Also I saw that you're confused about NC 13. I decided to split them up because the highways are totally different and it didn't make sense in my mind to keep them all on one page. It also eliminated a stub that we probably couldn't improve to much.--Ncchild (talk) 00:01, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Sort of. I still prefer like the last version of a highway providing that previous information as oppose to sprinkling into various other articles. Notice that a lot of the history sections for NC highways tend to list previous routes before the current routing the highway is at. But, that is my opinion on the matter; your method is fine, just not what I typically do to resolve that particular issue. Reminder, if it is an Original State Highway, its always 1921, that's when it was established. --WashuOtaku (talk) 02:44, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Alright I'll remember that. Also looked at I-285 today. Are we sure that isn't dead, NCDOT lists nothing about it on the projects section and most of the links are dead.--Ncchild (talk) 23:30, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Construction is nearly completed on a section of freeway near Lexington now. Yes, that is still planned as I-285. --WashuOtaku (talk) 01:26, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Changing back I-540

I stumbled across a request for I-540 to be granted an exception by ASHTO so that the entire loop becomes I-540. As much as I hate to admit I was wrong, I think we should change it back, but I wanted to run it by you.--Ncchild (talk) 02:11, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Let's change it back. --WashuOtaku (talk) 21:27, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge

You are invited to participate in the 50,000 Challenge, aiming for 50,000 article improvements and creations for articles relating to the United States. This effort began on November 1, 2016 and to reach our goal, we will need editors like you to participate, expand, and create. See more here!

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:40, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Washuotaku. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)